{"id":918,"date":"2012-10-18T15:43:50","date_gmt":"2012-10-18T21:43:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=918"},"modified":"2012-10-18T15:43:50","modified_gmt":"2012-10-18T21:43:50","slug":"how-low-can-you-go-shortening-the-statute-of-limitations-in-arbitration-agreements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/how-low-can-you-go-shortening-the-statute-of-limitations-in-arbitration-agreements\/","title":{"rendered":"How low can you go? Shortening the Statute of Limitations in Arbitration Agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Liz Kramer – October 10, 2012<\/p>\n

I see more and more arbitration agreements that contain their own limitations period (the timeline for bringing a dispute in arbitration). Are all of those necessarily enforceable? No.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe<\/em>, 331 U.S. 586 (1947), the Supreme Court held that contracts may shorten the statute of limitations so long as the period is reasonable. (This blog\u00a0has previously addressed<\/a>\u00a0who hears the limitations argument \u2014 courts or arbitrators.) However, there are very few hard-and-fast guidelines that courts offer on what amount of time is reasonable in the arbitration context. Periods as short as ninety days have been found reasonable, while periods as long as two years have been found unreasonable.\u00a0See, e.g.<\/em>,\u00a0Letourneau v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.<\/em>, No. Civ. 03-530-B, 2004 WL 758231, at *1 (D.N.H. Apr. 7, 2004) (upholding ninety-day limitations period);\u00a0McKee v. AT&T Corp.<\/em>, 191 P.3d 845, 859-60 (Wash. 2008) (invalidating two-year limitations period).<\/p>\n

In determining reasonableness, courts look at the unique facts of each case and the relevant policy considerations. Here are three factors that will make it less likely for a court to uphold the contract\u2019s limitation period:<\/p>\n